[ShepherdsDog]

Only in Canada are we sanctimonious enough to poke fun at American health care being ranked at the bottom of the developed world, while we're ranked second from the bottom.

[Public_Domain]

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Only in Canada are we sanctimonious enough to poke fun at American health care being ranked at the bottom of the developed world, while we're ranked second from the bottom.

Not quite. We're no. 30, the US is 38. Surprising countries ahead of ours are Oman at 8, Greece 14, Colombia 22, Saudi Arabia 26, UAE 27, Morocco 29.

This is a WHO study done in 2000.

The study you are thinking of was this one:

0:

Capture.PNG [ 234.83 KiB | Viewed 554 times ]

Not exactly looking at the whole world. Note that we are #2 for long, healthy, productive lives, and look at the costs/capita. All that money doesn't buy the US diddly squat.

[fifeboy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Only in Canada are we sanctimonious enough to poke fun at American health care being ranked at the bottom of the developed world, while we're ranked second from the bottom.

Ahh, Gunnie, found it for ya!

[Gunnair]

fifeboy fifeboy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Only in Canada are we sanctimonious enough to poke fun at American health care being ranked at the bottom of the developed world, while we're ranked second from the bottom.

Ahh, Gunnie, found it for ya!

[ShepherdsDog]

Just when you want to give them the benefit of the doubt..........

this sort of stupid shit happens

[Gunnair]

Yep.

[Public_Domain]

[Psudo]

DanSC DanSC:

Psudo Psudo:

Any American who complains that other nations are spending too much on defense are just plain nuts. I don't hear that argument much [...]

Have you ever heard an American argue this? I never have.

I don't remember everything I've ever heard, but I don't remember hearing this. I did hear some truly bizarre variations on right-wing views during my years on the Ann Coulter forums, so I can't say "No" with complete certainty.

Andyt: Is a higher or a lower number preferable in that list? I get the impression from the word "elasticity" that they are measures of flexibility (ie, a larger number means a wider range of outcomes for the second generation), but knowing you I expect it to be a criticism of the USA... so, is it the likelihood of the next generation being pulled to toward the income class of their parents? Without context, the term is ambiguous.

Assuming that greater elasticity is bad, are these figures relative to the income spread of the country or based on actual amounts of currency? If the former, I greatly expect that it is merely a reflection of income disparity rather than a fair measure of income variance between generations. Do you know if measuring those two different ways makes a difference in the national rankings?

Also, are such figures available for the 30-or-so other developed nations, or for the the 200 or so other nations generally?

[fifeboy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

fifeboy fifeboy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Only in Canada are we sanctimonious enough to poke fun at American health care being ranked at the bottom of the developed world, while we're ranked second from the bottom.

Ahh, Gunnie, found it for ya!

$1:

Cue indignation in 3....2......1.......

[Gunnair]

[andyt]

Psudo Psudo:

DanSC DanSC:

Psudo Psudo:

Any American who complains that other nations are spending too much on defense are just plain nuts. I don't hear that argument much [...]

Have you ever heard an American argue this? I never have.

I don't remember everything I've ever heard, but I don't remember hearing this. I did hear some truly bizarre variations on right-wing views during my years on the Ann Coulter forums, so I can't say "No" with complete certainty.

Andyt: Is a higher or a lower number preferable in that list? I get the impression from the word "elasticity" that they are measures of flexibility (ie, a larger number means a wider range of outcomes for the second generation), but knowing you I expect it to be a criticism of the USA... so, is it the likelihood of the next generation being pulled to toward the income class of their parents? Without context, the term is ambiguous.

Assuming that greater elasticity is bad, are these figures relative to the income spread of the country or based on actual amounts of currency? If the former, I greatly expect that it is merely a reflection of income disparity rather than a fair measure of income variance between generations. Do you know if measuring those two different ways makes a difference in the national rankings?

Also, are such figures available for the 30-or-so other developed nations, or for the the 200 or so other nations generally?

$1:

Children from poor families in Britain have a greater chance of struggling on low incomes than their counterparts in the west's other rich countries, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said today.

Highlighting the UK's lack of social mobility, the Paris-based thinktank said the chances of a young person from a less well-off family enjoying higher wages or getting a higher level of education than their parents was "relatively low".

The findings came in the OECD's latest Going for Growth report, which said the developed world faced a "daunting task" in restoring public finances to health after the most severe recession since the second world war. It stressed the need for stronger financial regulation and structural reform to labour markets in order to lay the foundations for sustained recovery.

"Policy reform can remove obstacles to intergenerational social mobility and thereby promote economic equality of opportunities across individuals," the OECD said.

Labour and the Conservatives have repeatedly clashed recently on whether it is now easier for young people to escape from poverty, and the issue is likely to feature strongly in the election campaign.

The OECD, which has more than 30 developed-country members, said the UK's record – along with a number of other rich countries – was unimpressive. "Mobility in earnings across pairs of fathers and sons is particularly low in France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, while mobility is higher in the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 ... -mobility#

$1:

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal published a series of front-page articles on this issue in May 2005.[8] Americans have often seen their country as a ‘land of opportunity’ where anyone can succeed despite his background. A study performed by economists at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2009 found that Britain and the United States have the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility, or the highest levels of intergenerational persistence. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and Canada tend to have high rates of social mobility. Norway proved to be the most mobile society.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility


Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/ha ... d=all&_r=0

[Psudo]

"Yes, lower is better" would have provided me all the information contained in those links far more succinctly and just as meaningfully.

None of those links address this question from my previous post: "are these figures relative to the income spread of the country or based on actual amounts of currency?" This matters because it is inherently easier to rise to the highest echelons of a society when they aren't very high, but it is also a less meaningful feat. I'd also be fine with actual purchasing power.

I'm also annoyed that of the "more than 30 developed-country members" (31 it seems), the two charts you've shown me, Andy, the USA is 8th of of 9 or 10th out of 12 by intergenerational income elasticity. This chart has the USA as 15th out of 21, and this one 12th out of 15. We're not doing remarkably well by any of these measures, which put us somewhere between the 11th percentile and the 28th, but they are missing the data of roughly 1/3rd of the developed world, let alone the world at large. Depending on where the other 1/3rd fall in the rankings, we'll fit somewhere between middling (51st percentile) and really pathetically low (somewhere in the bottom 1/5th). Adding the rest of the world for context might put the USA as high as 15th out of 210 (the 92nd percentile). What you've provided is certainly enough evidence to convince me that the USA would not be listed among the top 10% best in the world at upward class mobility (which I didn't think anyway), but not enough to narrow down our overall situation much more than that.

Does any of that need more explanation? Do you know where I can find an explanation of the math that calculates intergenerational income elasticity?

[Psudo]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Time to reset the "Days since an American tragedy" poster back to zero, I guess.

What's Canada's on? 2? 1?

The world is large enough for multiple tragedies per hour to go unnoticed. Is the population of the world America's fault? Is the level of tragedy in the human experience?

[andyt]

Psudo - you want to learn more about social mobility, google's your friend. I provided some sources with links, all of which show that the US is not right up there with some other countries as the land where there is high social mobility. Measuring this is not an exact science, but none put the US near the top. We do much better here in Canada, for instance. So land of opportunity, while probably true at one time, rings hollow now.